#Sotomayor vote shows a Republican party out of touch
5102 Dead, 235 since 1/20/09
http://www.truthout.org/080709I
Sotomayor Vote; Republicans a Party Out of Touch
Thursday 06 August 2009
by: Bill Hare | Visit article original @ Political Cortex
photo
Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky), shown with other Republican senators, has
fought the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. (Photo:
Getty Images)
A once strong Republican Party that Karl Rove and Grover Norquist
predicted would eviscerate its opposition has resorted to such a bungling
spectacle that Rush Limbaugh has been declared in many circles as its de
facto leader.
A classic current example is the 68-31 confirmation vote Thursday for
Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Not one Democrat voted
against the woman who will become the first Hispanic ever to wear a
Supreme Court robe. All no votes were cast by Republicans.
As a party the GOP broke 31 against Sotomayor with 9 votes supporting
her. Senator John Voinovich of Ohio, a shrewd politician who served as
mayor of Cleveland before reaching the Senate, stated realistically that,
while Sotomayor would not have been his nominee had he been president,
that this was not his role. It was up to him to decide if she were
qualified to serve as a Supreme Court justice and voted yes accordingly.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky's analysis of why he
would vote against Sotomayor that he could not be confident that she
would put political and personal considerations behind her when casting
votes, and as such he was voting against her, is arrant nonsense both on
a pragmatic political as well as philosophical level.
Did Senator McConnell frame the issue accordingly when Republican
chief executives proposed nominees? Do judges fall within impenetrable
vacuums?
It has been a long time maxim in Washington that "Justices follow
election returns." Can McConnell name one judge in Supreme Court annals
who was able to function within the kind of philosophical straitjacket he
saw fit to impose on Sonia Sotomayor?
This was one of the points that Republicans nitpicked in Sotomayor's
confirmation hearings, taking a statement she made that essentially
stated that we are all a byproduct of our own personal experiences, and
that our thought cannot help but reflect this truism.
As a woman from an Hispanic, working class New York City background,
she would reflect certain insights and experiences drawn from them that
someone of another background could not, at least to an appreciable
degree.
The same circumstances relate to any other judge. As such it is good
to seek some semblance of balance on any court. A court, like any other
body, reflects the sum total of the backgrounds of the individuals who
comprise it and the experiences from which they draw from those uniquely
personal experiences.
The other point on which Republicans chose to take issue with
Sotomayor was a case involving an allegation of reverse discrimination in
hiring practices.
Anyone who ever attended law school realizes that these are the cases
that draw much comment in class discussion and law review articles. They
are difficult to decide and will leave many unhappy with whatever result
is reached, but spark much interest in those interested in legal theory.
Such cases frequently boil down to interpreting arcane phraseology
that, even by the most careful arbiter, is open to varied interpretation.
A judge operating from a roughly centrist position on the ideological
pendulum might move in one direction, that of affirmative action, in one
case and differently in another.
Based on her record, Sotomayor looms as a centrist and embodies the
best that Republicans could anticipate from a Democratic president with
majorities in both houses of Congress.
Before the hearings ended the National Rifle Association and anti-
abortion lobby weighed in, with Republicans paying deference to two
groups that have long held strong party influence.
The Republican Party's unpopularity with the broad mainstream of U.S.
voters stems from the fact that it is increasingly perceived as a body
perpetually beholden to right wing pressure groups.
It is ludicrous that a radio demagogue like Rush Limbaugh, whose
popularity stems from pleasing a radical right fringe, would be perceived
by so many Republicans as a de facto party leader, if not the de facto
party leader.
Disagree with the Reagan Revolution as one might, the Republicans who
successfully forged it knew enough to deliver a clear and concise message
to voters. The effort was to make Ronald Reagan, a California politician
spawned from right wing zealotry, palatable to the vital center that
decides American elections.
The strategy was to concentrate on two basic themes of taxes and
diminished regulation. This strategy was delivered within an overarching
message of returning America to past greatness and pride in being an
American.
While many questioned the principles and objectives of Reagan and the
revolution for which he stood, the difference between those Republicans
and the blundering figures of the party's current existence was the
ability to package outwardly appearing clear, palatable ideas that
resonated with the central core of U.S. voters.
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread." (Anatole France from The Red Lily, 1894)
Foxtrot
>http://www.truthout.org/080709I
>
>Sotomayor Vote; Republicans a Party Out of Touch
>Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky), shown with other Republican senators, has
>fought the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. (Photo:
>Getty Images)
>
> A once strong Republican Party that Karl Rove and Grover Norquist
>predicted would eviscerate its opposition has resorted to such a bungling
>spectacle that Rush Limbaugh has been declared in many circles as its de
>facto leader.
>
> A classic current example is the 68-31 confirmation vote Thursday for
>Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Not one Democrat voted
>against the woman who will become the first Hispanic ever to wear a
>Supreme Court robe. All no votes were cast by Republicans.
Quotamoyor appeases another demographic that Dems owe. They're the
party that injected race into the discussion and made a point of exploiting
it. Nyah nyah we put a Hispanic on the SC and you didn't so you're bigots
nyah nyah!!
Pandering is elitist and insulting, so Dems heavily rely on it.
Joker's next USSC nomination: A transgendered Asian vegan.
> As a woman from an Hispanic, working class New York City background,
>she would reflect certain insights and experiences drawn from them that
>someone of another background could not, at least to an appreciable
>degree.
Yeah. She's a self declared "wise Latina", remember?
5102 Dead, 235 since 1/20/09
> "5102 Dead, 235 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.truthout.org/080709I
>>
>>Sotomayor Vote; Republicans a Party Out of Touch
>
>>Mitch McConnell (R- Kentucky), shown with other Republican senators, has
>>fought the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. (Photo:
>>Getty Images)
>>
>> A once strong Republican Party that Karl Rove and Grover Norquist
>>predicted would eviscerate its opposition has resorted to such a
>>bungling spectacle that Rush Limbaugh has been declared in many circles
>>as its de facto leader.
>>
>> A classic current example is the 68-31 confirmation vote Thursday
>> for
>>Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Not one Democrat voted
>>against the woman who will become the first Hispanic ever to wear a
>>Supreme Court robe. All no votes were cast by Republicans.
>
> Quotamoyor appeases another demographic that Dems owe. They're the party
> that injected race into the discussion and made a point of exploiting
> it. Nyah nyah we put a Hispanic on the SC and you didn't so you're
> bigots nyah nyah!!
>
> Pandering is elitist and insulting, so Dems heavily rely on it.
You just keep alienating every discernable group in American politics.
No, really. You've been doing an excellent job of it, and I couldn't be
more grateful.
>
> Joker's next USSC nomination: A transgendered Asian vegan.
There are still transgendered Asiatic vegetarians who still support the
GOP. Well, Obama can fix that by nominating one and letting you run your
mouth.
You're down to eight red states now. Trying for three?
>
>> As a woman from an Hispanic, working class New York City background,
>>she would reflect certain insights and experiences drawn from them that
>>someone of another background could not, at least to an appreciable
>>degree.
>
> Yeah. She's a self declared "wise Latina", remember?
--
Billary/2009
wrote:
Yet president Bush was the first president to appoint Blacks,
Hispanics and Asians to SENIOR cabinet level positions. How quickly
the liberal whiners forget recent history.
Phlip
> Hispanics and Asians to SENIOR cabinet level positions. How quickly
> the liberal whiners forget recent history.
That's because he believes in affirmative action to promote token
minorities to visible positions. Everyone knows that the real meetings
excluded Rice & Powell - they were for show.
Kevin Cunningham
wrote:
And he did (??) that and killed thousands more of every color he could
find. Of course he didn't kill coward like he and Cheney. If you
wanted to run away Bush's gentle hand was on your back.
Kevin Cunningham
Yeah, and you are a good 'ole racist, you don't want any Latina ever
on the court.
The best you could come up with are three cases out of thousands that
you didn't like. But she was a Latina, that sealed the deal.
Now go of and head the "Palin for Something" group. You gotta lot of
work to do!
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot <foxt...@null.com> wrote:
>> Quotamoyor appeases another demographic that Dems owe. They're the
>> party that injected race into the discussion and made a point of exploiting
>> it. Nyah nyah we put a Hispanic on the SC and you didn't so you're bigots
>> nyah nyah!!
>>
>> Pandering is elitist and insulting, so Dems heavily rely on it.
>>
>> Joker's next USSC nomination: A transgendered Asian vegan.
>>
>> > � �As a woman from an Hispanic, working class New York City background,
>> >she would reflect certain insights and experiences drawn from them that
>> >someone of another background could not, at least to an appreciable
>> >degree.
>>
>> Yeah. She's a self declared "wise Latina", remember?
>
>Yeah, and you are a good 'ole racist, you don't want any Latina ever
>on the court.
Prove it Dunghump. I'm waiting so get crackin'.
Your dipshit ally from Mt Shasta has made the same claim many
times. Still waiting for proof from him too.
>The best you could come up with are three cases out of thousands that
>you didn't like. But she was a Latina, that sealed the deal.
The "wise Latina" phrase she used several times shows she's a sexist
and a racist. I'd say the same things about anybody who claimed their
demographics put them above anybody else.
5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09
She used it once, little racist. And you do hate her because shes a
Latina.
Steve
Actually, she used it a lot of times.... and given Jamieson's
ignorance and lack of motivation, I doubt he has any insight into
other's motivations
--
Lost your job?
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> The "wise Latina" phrase she used several times shows she's a sexist and
>> a racist. I'd say the same things about anybody who claimed their
>> demographics put them above anybody else.
>
>She used it once, little racist.
As usual you're lying.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
Sotomayor's 'wise Latina' comment a staple of her speeches
That sentence [wise Latina], or a similar one, has appeared in speeches
Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.
"She used it once, little racist." Multiple lies in your six word sentence.
Ready to begin eating crow, liar?
>And you do hate her because shes a
>Latina.
Really, liar? Prove it. Note that disagreement doesn't comprise hatred.
Now get busy proving your arguments that she only used it once and
that I'm a racist. C'mon lying asshole, get moving. <Snicker>
5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09
> "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>> The "wise Latina" phrase she used several times shows she's a sexist
>>> and a racist. I'd say the same things about anybody who claimed their
>>> demographics put them above anybody else.
>>
>>She used it once, little racist.
>
> As usual you're lying.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
>
> Sotomayor's 'wise Latina' comment a staple of her speeches
>
> That sentence [wise Latina], or a similar one, has appeared in
> speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.
>
> "She used it once, little racist." Multiple lies in your six word
> sentence. Ready to begin eating crow, liar?
I don't regard an opinion piece in CNN as any sort of proof.
>
>>And you do hate her because shes a
>>Latina.
>
> Really, liar? Prove it. Note that disagreement doesn't comprise hatred.
>
> Now get busy proving your arguments that she only used it once and that
> I'm a racist. C'mon lying asshole, get moving. <Snicker>
Ah, but you're making such a FUSS about that innocent little remark.
Even after she's confirmed and sworn in.
You're beside yourself with rage that there's a "Mexican" on the court,
aren't you?
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>>> The "wise Latina" phrase she used several times shows she's a sexist
>>>> and a racist. I'd say the same things about anybody who claimed their
>>>> demographics put them above anybody else.
>>>
>>>She used it once, little racist.
>>
>> As usual you're lying.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
>>
>> Sotomayor's 'wise Latina' comment a staple of her speeches
>>
>> That sentence [wise Latina], or a similar one, has appeared in
>> speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.
>>
>> "She used it once, little racist." Multiple lies in your six word
>> sentence. Ready to begin eating crow, liar?
>
>I don't regard an opinion piece in CNN as any sort of proof.
At the bottom of the link
CNN's Dana Bash and Emily Sherman contributed to this report.
A report is not an opinion, stupid. CNN wouldn't report something that
was easily disproved. Unlike you they care about their credibility. As
usual you've made an ass of yourself for all to see and still can't
admit it.
BTW it's nice to see a lib turn against the mainstream media.
>>>And you do hate her because shes a
>>>Latina.
>>
>> Really, liar? Prove it. Note that disagreement doesn't comprise hatred.
>>
>> Now get busy proving your arguments that she only used it once and that
>> I'm a racist. C'mon lying asshole, get moving. <Snicker>
<Crickets>
Thought so.
>Ah, but you're making such a FUSS about that innocent little remark.
>Even after she's confirmed and sworn in.
How terrible to prove her smug sexism and racism eh? A wee bit more
substantiated than your claims of racism!
>You're beside yourself with rage that there's a "Mexican" on the court,
>aren't you?
You're projecting racism again.
5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09
> "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>>> "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>>>> The "wise Latina" phrase she used several times shows she's a sexist
>>>>> and a racist. I'd say the same things about anybody who claimed
>>>>> their demographics put them above anybody else.
>>>>
>>>>She used it once, little racist.
>>>
>>> As usual you're lying.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
>>>
>>> Sotomayor's 'wise Latina' comment a staple of her speeches
>>>
>>> That sentence [wise Latina], or a similar one, has appeared in
>>> speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.
>>>
>>> "She used it once, little racist." Multiple lies in your six word
>>> sentence. Ready to begin eating crow, liar?
>>
>>I don't regard an opinion piece in CNN as any sort of proof.
>
> At the bottom of the link
>
> CNN's Dana Bash and Emily Sherman contributed to this report.
>
> A report is not an opinion, stupid. CNN wouldn't report something that
> was easily disproved. Unlike you they care about their credibility. As
> usual you've made an ass of yourself for all to see and still can't
> admit it.
You must not be familiar with cable news. Anything they feel like saying
they dignify as a "report". They are nothing but low-end entertainment
pretending to be news.
>
> BTW it's nice to see a lib turn against the mainstream media.
>
Not real familiar with my views on American "mainstream media", are you?
>>>>And you do hate her because shes a
>>>>Latina.
>>>
>>> Really, liar? Prove it. Note that disagreement doesn't comprise
>>> hatred.
>>>
>>> Now get busy proving your arguments that she only used it once and
>>> that I'm a racist. C'mon lying asshole, get moving. <Snicker>
>
> <Crickets>
>
> Thought so.
>
>>Ah, but you're making such a FUSS about that innocent little remark.
>>Even after she's confirmed and sworn in.
>
> How terrible to prove her smug sexism and racism eh? A wee bit more
> substantiated than your claims of racism!
>
>>You're beside yourself with rage that there's a "Mexican" on the court,
>>aren't you?
>
> You're projecting racism again.
--
Foxtrot
Now you've shifted your argument from it being an opinion piece to
an opinion piece disguised as a report.
Gonna start citing wsws.com again?
>> BTW it's nice to see a lib turn against the mainstream media.
>>
>Not real familiar with my views on American "mainstream media", are you?
Dailykos.com? Moveon.org? Pravda? Castro speeches?
5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09
I probably will. They have higher journalistic standards than the
corporate trash on TV does.
>
>>> BTW it's nice to see a lib turn against the mainstream media.
>>>
>>Not real familiar with my views on American "mainstream media", are you?
>
> Dailykos.com? Moveon.org? Pravda? Castro speeches?
--
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>You must not be familiar with cable news. Anything they feel like
>>>saying they dignify as a "report". They are nothing but low-end
>>>entertainment pretending to be news.
>>
>> Now you've shifted your argument from it being an opinion piece to an
>> opinion piece disguised as a report.
>>
>> Gonna start citing wsws.com again?
>
>I probably will. They have higher journalistic standards than the
>corporate trash on TV does.
That explains a lot.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:53:50 -0700, Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>>> The "wise Latina" phrase she used several times shows she's a sexist
>>>> and a racist. I'd say the same things about anybody who claimed their
>>>> demographics put them above anybody else.
>>>
>>>She used it once, little racist.
>>
>> As usual you're lying.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
>>
>> Sotomayor's 'wise Latina' comment a staple of her speeches
>>
>> That sentence [wise Latina], or a similar one, has appeared in
>> speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.
>>
>> "She used it once, little racist." Multiple lies in your six word
>> sentence. Ready to begin eating crow, liar?
>
>I don't regard an opinion piece in CNN as any sort of proof.
Zepp only believes what he wants to believe. It's the leftist way...
>>>And you do hate her because shes a
>>>Latina.
>>
>> Really, liar? Prove it. Note that disagreement doesn't comprise hatred.
>>
>> Now get busy proving your arguments that she only used it once and that
>> I'm a racist. C'mon lying asshole, get moving. <Snicker>
>
>Ah, but you're making such a FUSS about that innocent little remark.
>Even after she's confirmed and sworn in.
>
>You're beside yourself with rage that there's a "Mexican" on the court,
>aren't you?
>
>
>
>--
>"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
>"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
>to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
>bread." (Anatole France from The Red Lily, 1894)
--
5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09
So why do you keep watching them? They only make you stupid before your
time.
Billary/2009
wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:35:52 -0700, Foxtrot wrote:
> > "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
> >>Foxtrot wrote:
> >>>>You must not be familiar with cable news. Anything they feel like
> >>>>saying they dignify as a "report". They are nothing but low-end
> >>>>entertainment pretending to be news.
>
> >>> Now you've shifted your argument from it being an opinion piece to an
> >>> opinion piece disguised as a report.
>
> >>> Gonna start citing wsws.com again?
>
> >>I probably will. They have higher journalistic standards than the
> >>corporate trash on TV does.
>
> > That explains a lot.
>
> So why do you keep watching them? They only make you stupid before your
> time.
>
> --
> "Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
> bread." (Anatole France from The Red Lily, 1894)
>
> --
> "Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
> bread." (Anatole France from The Red Lily, 1894)
It beats all of the K00K, conspiracy theory websites you quote Zepp.
But then again you're not even American. So get lost.
5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09
> On Aug 10, 9:34 am, "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:35:52 -0700, Foxtrot wrote:
>> > "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Foxtrot wrote:
>> >>> "5108 Dead, 241 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>> >>>>You must not be familiar with cable news. Anything they feel like
>> >>>>saying they dignify as a "report". They are nothing but low-end
>> >>>>entertainment pretending to be news.
>>
>> >>> Now you've shifted your argument from it being an opinion piece to
>> >>> an opinion piece disguised as a report.
>>
>> >>> Gonna start citing wsws.com again?
>>
>> >>I probably will. They have higher journalistic standards than the
>> >>corporate trash on TV does.
>>
>> > That explains a lot.
>>
>> So why do you keep watching them? They only make you stupid before
>> your time.
> It beats all of the K00K, conspiracy theory websites you quote Zepp. But
> then again you're not even American. So get lost.
You really should stop waggling your little flag when you're wetting
yourself in fear. It's unbecoming.
Doing it in defense of Faux or CNN is just plain pathetic.